Abstract: This article examines the metaphysical nature of Samkhya and the concept of subject within it; then the author refers to the polemics between Buddhists and Samkhyaks as it is described in the passage Atmapariksha from Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha (VIII century) with the commentary "Panjika” of Shri Kamalashila. The subject of this research is the concept of subject within the philosophical system of Samkhya as it is given in Samkhya Karika and section on the polemics with Samkhya of the chapter Atmapariksha from Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha with the commentary "Panjika” of Shri Kamalashila. The object of this research is the Samkhya Karika and Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha. The key research method is the classical historical-philosophical method suggesting the combination of several methodological approaches. Genetic approach, comprehended as a method of studying philosophical concepts and notions, is based on the analysis of their origin and development. It implies consideration of the objects in evolutionary perspective, in dynamics of their historical development, therefore requires the establishment of initial conditions, key stage, main trends and strategies of development. The main goal of such research lies in identification of connection between the objects in time, studying of transitions from the historically older forms of philosophical (or even pre-philosophical) reflection towards the historically more recent. The author’s special contribution consists in conducting the first even research in Russia and in Russian language of the chapter “Discussion with the representatives of Samkhya on Atman” of the passage Atmapariksha from Shantarakshita's Tattvasamgraha with the commentary "Panjika” of Shri Kamalashila based on the original translation from Sanskrit.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the philosophical polemics between Buddhism and Indian School Nyaya- Vaisheshika on the question of the existence and characteristics of an actor as it presented in the 8th book Vasubandhu's "Abhidharmakosa-Bhasya" (IV-V centuries) – “Pudgalavinishchaya”.It is one of the polemic compositions regarding the existence and characteristics of an actor, in which found their reflection the discussions of that topic between the “Orthodox” Buddhists on one hand, and Buddhists-“Heretics” (Pudgalavadin), Nyaya- Vaisheshikas, philosophers-grammarians, Sankhyaikas on the other hand. The article uses the comparative-historical method, comparative analysis, popular methodology of philosophical translation from Sanskrit into the Russian language. Vaisheshikas acknowledge the existence of the eternal irrevocable atman. The main argument of Vasubandhu is that if it did exist that the states of mind also will be eternal and irrevocable, which, apparently, does not correspond with the reality. On the contrary, the states of mind (citta) are momentary, because consist of the momentary dharma, generating from each other in cause-and-effect relation (within the flow of volatile dharma). The scientific novelty lies in conducting the first translation from Sanskrit into the Russian Language of a substantial chapter from “Pudgalavinishchaya" of Vasubandhu with the commentary of Yashomitra, dedicated to the question of the existence of the actor, as well as philosophical analysis of the provided fragment of the text.

Abstract: The subject of this article is the philosophical polemics between Buddhism and Indian School of Nyaya-Vaisheshika on the question of existence and qualities of an actor as it presented in the chapter Atmapariksha (literally, "Study of the Atman") in Shantarakshita’s Tattvasamgraha). Shantarakshita is a Buddhist philosopher of the VIII century, one of the prominent Buddhist thinkers in India and Tibet, a representative of the school of Svatantrika-Madhyamaka. An outstanding oeuvre of Shantarakshita is "Tattvasamgraha" ("Compilation of Essential Problems", or "Compendium of Principles"). It is an extensive polemic work, containing 26 chapters that subject to criticism the identical number of the fundamental philosophical schools of India (Sankhya, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimansa, Lokayata, Yoga, Vedanta, and also Jainism and Buddhism of other schools). The author concludes that the key postulate of the Nyaya-Vaisheshika regarding the actor lies in the fact that for the mental phenomena (for example, desire, etc.), which are considered as qualities within its system, necessitates the presence of a certain substrate, namely Atman. Shantarakshita, in turn, criticizes the position of the Nyaya-Vaisheshika that the numerous perceptions are comprehended by "self" and, therefore, pertain to the same actor. This article is first to introduce translation from Sanskrit into the Russian language of a substantial passage from Shantarakshita’s Tattvasamgraha with commentaries of Kamalashila dedicated to the question of the existence of actor, as well as philosophical analysis of the aforementioned fragment of text.